May 2011 - address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
by Sander Steffann 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Hello WG, I asked the RIPE NCC to get legal counsel on the possibilities of a court ordering the RIPE NCC to revoke or confiscate RPKI certificates. Here is the full answer we received: ========== The RIPE NCC is an association under Dutch law and therefore subject to the Dutch legislation. RIPE NCC has consulted several external lawyers, and has obtained an analysis of the legal situation based on current, existing Dutch legislation. This analysis takes into account Dutch Criminal, Civil and Administrative law. Certificates are directly linked to the registration of the Internet number resources. There is no specific Dutch legislation that can be used to order the deregistration of Internet number resources or change the registration details of Internet number resources. Nor is there any legislation that applies to the revocation of certificates over Internet number resources. In the absence of such legislation, a court cannot order the revocation of certificates. It is the RIPE NCC’s view, based on this analysis, that the RIPE NCC cannot be ordered to revoke resource certificates. ========== Of course laws can change, but the advice above may address some of the concerns raised about the RPKI infrastructure. Sander Steffann APWG co-chair

24 84

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Extended Review period on the new draft document for IPv6 Address Policy
by Emilio Madaio 31 May '11

31 May '11

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 59 in Lisbon in October 2009, the RIPE NCC announced that it would undertake a project to make various RIPE policy documents easier to understand without changing the meaning of the text. As already announced, the latest draft document produced according to the project is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/updated-documents/ This is the merger of the three policy documents: -ripe-512 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" -ripe-451 "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points" -ripe-233 "IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region" The announcement of the publication of this new draft is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2011/msg00243… The Address Policy Working Group co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 13 June 2011 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. We encourage you to read this merged version and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net by 13 June 2011. Best Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by Emilio Madaio 27 May '11

27 May '11

Dear Colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-509, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/ We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 17 June 2011. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

19 40

RE: [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
by poty＠iiat.ru 23 May '11

23 May '11

>> And why wouldn't the Internet work with 600,000 prefixes in the DFZ? > > Now all of a sudden for instance Cisco 7600 3CXL isn't enough to old a full table (at around 750k). > > Also, IPv6 uses twice the TCAM resources as IPv4... so, basically what you are saying is that you know that your routers need an upgrade in 5 years and you don't want to pay for an upgrade or you can't figure out a business plan which covers the costs for that? But you are telling small ISPs/NCOs/"hobbyusers"/whatever THEY don't get their business plan right if they don't can afford paying $$$ for PI space or rather would prefer to pay other bills with the money? WTF?! ------ No, the problem that the small ISPs you are speaking about will have to spend that money to swallow such routing table. And it is not $2000, "slightly" more...

10 14

re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
by boggits 20 May '11

20 May '11

On 20 May 2011 14:15, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook(a)eu.equinix.com> wrote: > > Unsurprisingly, as the author I fully support this policy proposal and I > would for the sake of the PDP encourage others to voice their agreement as > well - no response means no progress. I also support the proposal, my only thought would be if it might be better to use this change to make an overwrite of the 'current process' at the point of the first allocation of a /22 from the last /8 for the purpose of the avoidance of doubt... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476 -- James Blessing 07989 039 476

1 0

PP - 2011-02 - Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
by Adil H. Baghir 16 May '11

16 May '11

Hi, I highly support the policy... Adil H. Baghir Internet Development Chief Engineer Data & Solutions Planning and Design P.O.Box 69179 Riyadh 11423 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Tel: +966 56 031 3263 Fax: +966 56 041 3263 Mobile: +966 542 33 66 00 eMail: a.baghir(a)mobily.com.sa<mailto:a.baghir@mobily.com.sa> [cid:image001.jpg@01CC13AD.44C394C0] ------Disclaimer------ This email and any files transmitted with are classified as confidential unless otherwise specified. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail immediately and permanently. Although measures were taken to free this e-mail and its attachments from any malicious code infection, it is the responsibility of the recipient to check this email and any attachments for the presence of such infection. The use of EEC(Mobily) e-mail service is limited for EEC(Mobily) business use only.

1 0

minutes from RIPE 61
by Gert Doering 13 May '11

13 May '11

Hi APWG, since there were no more comments, we have declared the minutes from RIPE 61 (Rome) to be final. The minutes can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/apwg/minutes61 Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

RE: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1326 - 4 msgs
by ABS EMEA NIC - IPA Support AT&T 13 May '11

13 May '11

What is different when customer get PA instead of PI ? Don't you have to update the same prefix table ? Do you see any compromise between approve/deny this proposal ? let's say limited number of PI addresses for each End user ? Best regards _____________________________________ Pavol Kovac -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:00 PM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: address-policy-wg digest, Vol 1 #1326 - 4 msgs Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (Elmar Germann) 2. Re: Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (Sascha Lenz) 3. FW: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (poty(a)iiat.ru) 4. Re: Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 (thabet(a)gmail.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:36:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Elmar Germann <germann(a)global-village.de> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 Hello, we do not support this policy. Removing the requirement for multihomed announcements would simply result in more unnecessary PI assignments which will increase the prefix table. We were already asked from several customers for new PI assignments just to draw down the work in case of an ISP change. PI address space should always be bound to technical requirements so that only end users with real requirements are able to request an assignment. I agree that there's currently a discriminating between IPv6 PA und PI address space, but the conculsion should be changeing the policy for the PA address space and not offering PI address space without technical requirements. Kind regards, Elmar Germann. -- Global Village GmbH Tel +49 2855 9651 0 GF Marcus Faure Mehrumer Str. 16 Fax +49 2855 9651 110 Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987 D-46562 Voerde eMail info(a)globvill.de Ust-Id DE180295363 --__--__-- Message: 2 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 From: Sascha Lenz <slz(a)baycix.de> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:47:34 +0200 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Hay, Am 12.05.2011 um 22:36 schrieb Elmar Germann: > Hello, >=20 > we do not support this policy. Removing the requirement for multihomed = announcements would simply result in more unnecessary PI assignments = which will increase the prefix table. We were already asked from several = customers for new PI assignments just to draw down the work in case of = an ISP change. PI address space should always be bound to technical = requirements so that only end users with real requirements are able to = request an assignment. > I agree that there's currently a discriminating between IPv6 PA und PI = address space, but the conculsion should be changeing the policy for the = PA address space and not offering PI address space without technical = requirements. that might be a rather shortsighted and possibly dangerous view on the = matter. Because instead of just getting a PI prefix which you as clueful ISP = will inject in the DFZ, this just leads to most of them asking for a happy-meal including an ASN and = you have to deal with another unmaintained and possibly unstable AS in the DFZ because they just pay a = consultant once to set up BGP on their router and the Tunnel to he.net as a 2nd Upstream for = free and never care about it anymore. Or worse, they do it themselves with help from their = favorite search-engine *shudder*. ...just my 0.01 EUR And yes i don't understand the whining about the requirement anyways. It's easy to circumvent. So it's not at all doing anything good at all. (I indeed support the proposal for various non-technical reasons. If things with PI vs. PA might change anyways in the foreseeable future, = this=20 IPv4 vs. IPv6 PI policy distinction is doing nothing but hinder the desperately needed widespread IPv6 deployment at = the very moment. One has to set the right priorities here.) --=20 Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect --__--__-- Message: 3 Subject: FW: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:44:42 +0400 From: <poty(a)iiat.ru> To: <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Hello, I do not support this proposal. We are speaking about real possibilities = and real impact. The proposers doesn't know exactly the impact of the = changes and are deaf to the other people pointing to the real troubles = relating the grooving number of prefixes. Their na=EFve assumptions = about cheap BGP routers show their inability to broader the mind just = outside their small nets needs. Technical requirements should be the = only way of making decisions. If someone has tendency to lie - it would lie anyway - one thing or = another. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat --__--__-- Message: 4 Reply-To: thabet(a)gmail.com Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 To: poty@iiat.ru,address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net,address-policy-wg@ripe.net From: thabet(a)gmail.com Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:47:20 +0000 SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIFZsYWRpc2xhdiBQb3RhcG92DQoNCg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IEJsYWNrQmVy cnmuIHNtYXJ0cGhvbmUgZnJvbSBkdQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJv bTogPHBvdHlAaWlhdC5ydT4NClNlbmRlcjogYWRkcmVzcy1wb2xpY3ktd2ctYWRtaW5AcmlwZS5u ZXQNCkRhdGU6IEZyaSwgMTMgTWF5IDIwMTEgMTI6NDQ6NDIgDQpUbzogPGFkZHJlc3MtcG9saWN5 LXdnQHJpcGUubmV0Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogRlc6IFthZGRyZXNzLXBvbGljeS13Z10gUmVtb3ZhbCBv ZiBtdWx0aWhvbWVkIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGZvciBJUHY2DQoNCkhlbGxvLA0KSSBkbyBub3Qgc3Vw cG9ydCB0aGlzIHByb3Bvc2FsLiBXZSBhcmUgc3BlYWtpbmcgYWJvdXQgcmVhbCBwb3NzaWJpbGl0 aWVzIGFuZCByZWFsIGltcGFjdC4gVGhlIHByb3Bvc2VycyBkb2Vzbid0IGtub3cgZXhhY3RseSB0 aGUgaW1wYWN0IG9mIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2VzIGFuZCBhcmUgZGVhZiB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxl IHBvaW50aW5nIHRvIHRoZSByZWFsIHRyb3VibGVzIHJlbGF0aW5nIHRoZSBncm9vdmluZyBudW1i ZXIgb2YgcHJlZml4ZXMuIFRoZWlyIG5h73ZlIGFzc3VtcHRpb25zIGFib3V0IGNoZWFwIEJHUCBy b3V0ZXJzIHNob3cgdGhlaXIgaW5hYmlsaXR5IHRvIGJyb2FkZXIgdGhlIG1pbmQganVzdCBvdXRz aWRlIHRoZWlyIHNtYWxsIG5ldHMgbmVlZHMuIFRlY2huaWNhbCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgc2hvdWxk IGJlIHRoZSBvbmx5IHdheSBvZiBtYWtpbmcgZGVjaXNpb25zLg0KSWYgc29tZW9uZSBoYXMgdGVu ZGVuY3kgdG8gbGllIC0gaXQgd291bGQgbGllIGFueXdheSAtIG9uZSB0aGluZyBvciBhbm90aGVy Lg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KVmxhZGlzbGF2IFBvdGFwb3YNClJ1LmlpYXQNCg0K End of address-policy-wg Digest

1 0

FW: [address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 May '11

13 May '11

Hello, I do not support this proposal. We are speaking about real possibilities and real impact. The proposers doesn't know exactly the impact of the changes and are deaf to the other people pointing to the real troubles relating the grooving number of prefixes. Their naïve assumptions about cheap BGP routers show their inability to broader the mind just outside their small nets needs. Technical requirements should be the only way of making decisions. If someone has tendency to lie - it would lie anyway - one thing or another. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6
by Elmar Germann 13 May '11

13 May '11

Hello, we do not support this policy. Removing the requirement for multihomed announcements would simply result in more unnecessary PI assignments which will increase the prefix table. We were already asked from several customers for new PI assignments just to draw down the work in case of an ISP change. PI address space should always be bound to technical requirements so that only end users with real requirements are able to request an assignment. I agree that there's currently a discriminating between IPv6 PA und PI address space, but the conculsion should be changeing the policy for the PA address space and not offering PI address space without technical requirements. Kind regards, Elmar Germann. -- Global Village GmbH Tel +49 2855 9651 0 GF Marcus Faure Mehrumer Str. 16 Fax +49 2855 9651 110 Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987 D-46562 Voerde eMail info(a)globvill.de Ust-Id DE180295363

2 1